Hasting et al v. FCA US, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Plaintiffs' claims and Quadratec's crossclaims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on July 23, 2018. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
LIAM HASTINGS; et al.

v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 4:18-cv-4079

FCA US LLC f/k/a/ CHRYSLER
GROUP, LLC; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice. (ECF No. 21).
Separate Defendant Quadratec, Inc. (“Quadratec”) filed a response. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiffs filed a
reply. (ECF No. 23). No other party has responded, and the time to do so has passed. See Local Rule
7.2(b). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
On May 10, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this products liability and negligence action against Separate
Defendants Quadratec; FCA US LLC; and Lonnie McMurray’s Four-Wheel-Drive-Center, Inc. On
June 1, 2018, Quadratec filed its answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint and asserted crossclaims against
Separate Defendants FCA US LLC and Lonnie McMurray’s Four-Wheel-Drive-Center, Inc. On July
6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
Plaintiffs ask the Court to dismiss their claims against Defendants without prejudice.
On July 10, 2018, Quadratec responded to the instant motion. Quadratec states that it denies
that Plaintiffs’ complaint states a claim or that Plaintiffs’ complaint was timely filed. Quadratec also
states that on June 19, 2018, it sent Plaintiffs a spoliation notice and requested that Plaintiffs preserve
certain evidence, but Plaintiffs did not respond. Quadratec states further that it will only agree to
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice if Plaintiffs are directed to preserve evidence as set
forth in the June 19, 2018, spoliation notice. Quadratec also asks the Court to direct Plaintiffs to, prior
to dismissal, provide Quadratec with all documentation related to their alleged purchase of the vehicle

and suspension kit in question and all contacts and communications between Plaintiffs and the entity
from which Plaintiffs purchased the suspension kit. 1 Quadratec finally requests that, if the Court
dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, that the Court also dismiss without prejudice
Quadratec’s crossclaims against the other Defendants. 2
The Court will first address whether to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for dismissal of their claims
without prejudice. If the Court answers that question in the affirmative, it will then determine whether
to impose any of the conditions requested by Quadratec.
I. Dismissal of Claims
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 governs the dismissal of actions. An action may be
dismissed by court order at the plaintiff’s request, on terms the court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2).
A decision whether to allow a party to voluntarily dismiss a case rests upon the sound
discretion of the court. In exercising that discretion, a court should consider factors
such as whether the party has presented a proper explanation for its desire to dismiss;
whether a dismissal would result in a waste of judicial time and effort; and whether a
dismissal will prejudice the defendants. Likewise, a party is not permitted to dismiss
merely to escape an adverse decision nor to seek a more favorable forum.
Thatcher v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 1212, 1213-14 (8th Cir. 2011).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the balance of these factors weighs in favor of granting
Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal.

Although Plaintiffs’ motion does not set forth an

explanation for their desire to dismiss, their reply brief states that minor children involved in this case
are undergoing additional treatment and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and their counsel decided it would be
best to seek dismissal so that the additional treatment could be completed before proceeding with

1

Later in its response, Quadratec also asks that the Court require Plaintiffs to provide the identity of the person who
installed the suspension kit.

2

Quadratec does not make this request in a separate motion. However, in the interest of conserving time and resources
for all parties, the Court will construe this request as a Rule 41(a)(2) motion. No party has responded to or
acknowledged Quadratec’s request for dismissal, so the Court will consider the request to be unopposed.

2

litigation. The Court is satisfied with this explanation.
There is no indication that Plaintiffs seek dismissal based on a desire to escape an adverse
decision or to seek a more favorable forum, and Defendants have not argued as such. The Court has
issued no rulings—adverse or otherwise—in this case which Plaintiffs could be said to seek dismissal
to escape, and Plaintiffs initially filed the case in this Court. Presumably, if they choose to refile, they
would do so in this Court, as well.
Dismissal of this case would not result in a waste of judicial time or resources, as the case is in
its early stages, with little, if any, discovery having taken place. As previously indicated, the only
judicial resources expended on this case thus far have been issuing an Initial Scheduling Order and
deciding the instant motion.
Defendants do not argue that they would be prejudiced by dismissal. At most, Quadratec states
that it appears that Plaintiffs intend to refile their lawsuit at a later date. Any harm to Defendants from
a second action would be minimal. See id. at 1214 (“Prejudice does not arise simply because a second
action has been or may be filed against the defendant, which is often the whole point in dismissing a
case without prejudice.”). Defendants have not been required to expend a significant amount of time
or resources in defending this case, as they have only filed pleadings thus far. Thus, the Court finds
that Defendants would not be unfairly prejudiced by dismissal.
For the above-discussed reasons, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants, and Quadratec’s
crossclaims against the other Defendants, should be dismissed without prejudice.
II. Imposition of Conditions
The Court now turns to Quadratec’s request that the Court impose certain conditions on the
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims.
“When a Court grants a dismissal under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 41(a)(2), the Court has the authority
to impose such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Plumlee v. Humana Ins. Co., No.

3

4:09-cv-0780-GTE, 2010 WL 11530668, at *3 (E.D. Ark. May 28, 2010). The purpose of doing so “is
primarily to prevent voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side.” Paulucci v. City of
Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 782 (8th Cir. 1987); Karsjens v. Jesson, No. CIV. 11-3659 DWF/JJK, 2015 WL
3755930, at *1 (D. Minn. June 17, 2015) (“If a court determines that a dismissal without any terms or
conditions will prejudice defendants, . . . the court [may] grant the motion and attach conditions that
cure the prejudice.”).
Quadratec asks the Court to condition Plaintiffs’ dismissal on them disclosing to Quadratec
certain information prior to dismissal. Plaintiffs argue in reply that Quadratec does not cite authority
supporting the imposition of such conditions. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that, if necessary, the
sought-after information can be obtained by defense counsel at a later date. Plaintiffs also argue that
the sought-after information has no bearing on the instant motion for voluntary dismissal.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The Court will not condition dismissal on Plaintiffs first
disclosing certain information to Quadratec. Quadratec provides no reason why it requires disclosure
of the information it requests prior to the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims. Nor does Quadratec argue
that it would somehow suffer prejudice if it does not receive said information before dismissal. As
such, the Court sees no reason to condition dismissal on Plaintiffs first disclosing the requested
information to Quadratec. See Walker v. Braner USA, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-0272-KGB, 2014 WL
1874958, at *1 (E.D. Ark. May 8, 2014) (denying a defendant’s requested Rule 41(a)(2) condition
because the defendant did not argue that it would be prejudiced without the condition). If Plaintiffs
refile the case, Quadratec may seek the requested information through formal discovery or through
other informal means.
Quadratec also asks the Court to condition Plaintiffs’ dismissal on their obligation to preserve
evidence in accordance with a June 19, 2018, spoliation notice. Plaintiffs concede that the initiation
of this litigation triggered the duty to preserve evidence for all parties. However, Plaintiffs argue that
Quadratec’s requested condition regarding preservation of evidence is too broad, as it requests a

4

condition being placed solely upon Plaintiffs to preserve “all evidence related to (the) alleged claims.”
Plaintiffs state that they have no issue with the fundamental concept that every party to this litigation
now has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that all evidence bearing on the issues in this case be
preserved in a reasonable manner.
The Court also declines to condition dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims on their compliance with
Quadratec’s June 19, 2018, spoliation notice. Although Quadratec does not explain why it asks for
this condition or argue that it would be prejudiced without it, the Court presumes that Quadratec seeks
this condition to ensure that all relevant evidence is preserved in anticipation of Plaintiffs eventually
refiling this case. Plaintiffs indicate a willingness to take reasonable measures to preserve any relevant
evidence in this case if the other parties also take the same measures. The Court is satisfied from this
statement that Quadratec’s presumed reason for requesting the condition—preservation of relevant
evidence—will be accomplished without imposing conditions. If Plaintiffs refile the case and a party
believes that another party has committed spoliation of evidence, the Court will entertain an appropriate
Rule 37 motion at that time.
III. Conclusion
For the above-discussed reasons, the Court finds that good cause has been shown for the
motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 21) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims and
Quadratec’s crossclaims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of July, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

5